Africa’s democracy and some leaders’ whims

Majority of adult Cameroonians below 50 years of age right now know little or nothing about any other president of their country. Paul Biya, the second president, will be 92 in 2025. Born February 13, 1933, he is undoubtedly the oldest person currently in power in Africa. He was a prime minister of Cameroon from 1975 to 1982. Then, from November 6, 1982, following the resignation of President Ahmadou Ahidjo on November 4, till today, he has been — and remains — the country’s president. He occupies a prominent position as the second longest serving leader in Africa after Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who has been there since 1979. In all of Africa, how popular is Equatorial Guinea as a country? Not much is known by outsiders about the country. However, its leader qualifies for the laurel of longest-serving president on the continent of Africa who gained power in 1979 through a coup d’état, later transforming into civilian administration and sit-tight government. One may argue that a prolonged stay of a ruler in power could bring stability. But that is a nebulous description except it is given granular qualifiers. For instance, what political or economic stability has Nguema’s 45 years of reign brought to Equatorial Guinea? 

None of these is news anymore. What is news now is that President Biya, who is still serving his seventh term as Cameroon’s leader, wants to contest again for another seven-year term in 2025. The field of dominant participation in what usually has a veneer of democratic contest had been thrown open since the April 2008 parliamentary vote removed the two-term limit on the office of the president. In 2025, when Biya turns 93, and when Cameroon holds its next presidential election, Paul Biya will contest for the eighth term as confirmed in July by the country’s presidency. And he will win. This is because opposition politicians may not be allowed to contest.  

It is easy to guess what type of legislature and judiciary operates under President Biya. Such docile legislature and complicit judiciary must have been put in place by a comfortable Biya who has not thought it fit to step down and pass the torch to a younger generation of participants, allowing them to continue while he sits back as an elder statesman. But no! He must contest. A much younger Paul Kagame has been the president of Rwanda since 2000. In essence, he is currently spending his 24th year in office. But that is not the end. Kagame had carefully orchestrated a constitutional reform in the form of a December 2015 referendum that allowed him to contest the 2017 election for the third term and remain in power till 2024. In this referendum, the head of Rwanda’s electoral commission reportedly said partial referendum results show citizens wanted him to continue till 2034. And since after the 2015 constitutional amendment, Kagame has become eligible to contest as often as he desires, for as long as he would like. He has consistently won every election since 2000 and had again won, in July this year, another landslide victory with 99 percent of the votes, according to the electoral body. This has effectively given him his fourth term, enabling him to continue in office for another five years in power. This is not altogether surprising in the circumstance under which criticism of government is cracked down upon. According to critics, Kagame has ruled with a firm hand and stifled dissent.

Kagame, now 66, is working from the answer to the question as he is expected to remain in power for another ten years, despite or because of the outcome of last July’s election. Going by earlier 2015 votes on his extended rule up to 2034, Kagame is expected to be 76 when he is expected to step down. But, given the allure of power, Kagame may extend his stay in office beyond that date. With the tinkering already done to the country’s constitution and the overwhelming electoral victories, Kagame remains surefooted as a possible life president of Rwanda. Irrespective of the outcomes of the 1994 genocide, it is doubtful if Kagame was ever right to contemplate — let alone, accept such an extended stay in power. 

Despite all the contrasts in the governance styles and contrasting achievements of both Paul Biya and Paul Kagame, the fact still remains that both are despots, constitutional coup leaders and election manipulators, having been winning one sham election after another. It is doubtful if their examples can serve as models of democracy for Africa, in particular, despite the popularity of Kagame. In his case, it is even worrisome that a power vacuum could be created in case he is ousted before he manages to prop up a successor in office. This can set Rwanda back to the dark genocide era. In other words, Rwanda could be postponing its evil day. Unlike under Kagame, Cameroon under Biya is already grappling with the bandit crisis within his territory.

The ongoing separatist Anglophone Crisis, also known as the Ambazonia War, began in September 2017 as an armed conflict in the English-speaking northwest and southwest regions of Cameroon. It began as a hostility between the Cameroonian government and separatist rebel groups and has exerted much toll on the internal cohesion of the country, attracting international attention. It has spiralled into unmitigated violence which the UN has classified as a humanitarian crisis. It is doubtful if Paul Biya is capable of bringing this crisis to an end as it drags on year after year. It may therefore be asked that what is Paul Biya doing to bring lasting peace to the country he is so obsessed with governing? With the keen obsession of Kagame, Biya and Nguema on remaining in power for so long, it is important for them to show what part of their governance system they would like other African leaders to emulate. Freedom of speech, free and fair elections, protection of the opposition or tolerance for criticisms are on the balance in all of the countries governed by these three personalities. It therefore becomes clear why many African leaders settle for quasi-democracy.

Since over half a century of democratic experiments, African countries now need to decide if they truly want to have and practise democracy. They also need to come to a consensus on the brand of democracy they think they can safely practise for the people’s benefits. The physical and infrastructural development in Rwanda is commendable. However, the prospect of sustainable impacts remains worrisome as the future of the country remains tied to one man. Depending on his manner of exit anytime in the future, it seems more like a gamble to bet on the country’s continued peace and prosperity after Kagame’s era. It is time for African countries to prioritise strong and robust institutions over strong leaders. Strong leaders could falter, stumble or fail, which occurs more often than not. In such situations, there are tendencies that, when they fall, they take down the countries with them. Quite often, countries without strong institutions end up imploding, becoming failed states. The likes of Faure Gnassingbé or Yoweri Museveni need to take heed. If they truly mean what they call democracy, then they should set about its implementation through leading by example. The world will continue without these men. If they think or assume that they are so indispensable, they are patently wrong. They should let others run the show, at least for a contrast. Africa can be better without them. These political actors need to learn to leave the stage when the ovation remains loudest. Africans can make a lot of progress if the political leaders will allow the common sense rules to guide them. At least, in the interest of the over one billion populace, these despots should learn willingly to pass the leadership batons to worthy successors. That way, others will learn to lead, not just to follow.

• business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com